Aceflyer Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 So I had this interesting thought earlier: What if there were an effectively 100% (let's say ~99.999%) chance of pregnancy every time any two people of different genders (with both being of childbearing age and with the female not being already pregnant) have sexual intercourse without reliable contraception? Would the unintended pregnancy rate in first world countries go up, go down, or remain about the same? Possible argument for going down: people might rely on unreliable contraception, such as the rhythm method or pulling out, less often. Possible argument for going up: people are still going to behave like they do now because lust and logic don't go together. Discuss away! For the purposes of this thread, consider 'reliable contraception' to include the pill, the shot, male/female sterilization, Implanon/Jadelle, IntraUterine System, CIC, copper IUD, LAM for first 6 months postpartum, Lea's Shield + spermicide, the patch, the ring, and the minipill. Pulling out, the rhythm method, male/female condoms, etc. are not considered 'reliable contraception' for purposes of this thread.
Samapico Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 So for the purpose of this thread, when 2 people have sex with a condom, 99.999% of the times the girl will get pregnant?
Aceflyer Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Posted November 7, 2008 So for the purpose of this thread, when 2 people have sex with a condom, 99.999% of the times the girl will get pregnant? Yes.
Bak Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 lol wat! I think it would go up for the first two years, then go down
Aceflyer Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Posted November 7, 2008 lol wat! I think it would go up for the first two years, then go down Heh. Why's that, in your opinion?
Bak Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 well.. people would need to adjust... but if they were used to it I think responsibility would triumph... especially after everyone who doesn't has a few kids of their own... they'd go get the shot at that point. maybe religious ppl would just instead have lots of babies until they go broke. I think the unintended pregnency rate among birth-control-using ppl would go down eventually though.
Aceflyer Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Posted November 7, 2008 well.. people would need to adjust... but if they were used to it I think responsibility would triumph... especially after everyone who doesn't has a few kids of their own... they'd go get the shot at that point. maybe religious ppl would just instead have lots of babies until they go broke. I think the unintended pregnency rate among birth-control-using ppl would go down eventually though. Makes sense. Thanks for sharing your insight.
»doc flabby Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 (edited) What if there were an effectively 100% (let's say ~99.999%) chance of pregnancyGiven the chance of pregnancy is much much lower (around 10% with 2 healthy people) even when no protection is use this arguement is kinda weird. "the pill" is still the most widely used birth contreceptive. The primary purpose of condoms is not to prevent preganicies (they have quite a high failure rate in preventing pregancies 2-3% in a year)It is to prevent the transmission of STDs.That said they are fairly reliable compared to some of the other methods such as pulling out etc Interesting (but prehaps incorrect fact): A women can't get pregnant whilst breast feeding. Another interesting fact. Having sex with an unfamlier partner (ie whislt cheating on your bf/husband) substancially increases the chance of pregnancy. Edited November 7, 2008 by doc flabby
Bak Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 Having sex with an unfamlier partner (ie whislt cheating on your bf/husband) substancially increases the chance of pregnancy.link please?
Aceflyer Posted November 7, 2008 Author Report Posted November 7, 2008 What if there were an effectively 100% (let's say ~99.999%) chance of pregnancyGiven the chance of pregnancy is much much lower (around 10% with 2 healthy people) even when no protection is use this arguement is kinda weird. This thread is purely a hypothetical analysis of human behavior. I am of course aware that the scenario described in this thread does not accurately depict RL. As well, the RL chance of pregnancy in the first year of use is 85%, not 10%, for unprotected intercourse between two fertile individuals of the opposite sex. A women can't get pregnant whilst breast feeding. Often but not always true. Refer to LAM for first 6 months postpartum. Having sex with an unfamlier partner (ie whislt cheating on your bf/husband) substancially increases the chance of pregnancy. Mmm? Can you clarify? Is this because of a tendency to engage in unprotected intercourse while exercising such behavior?
»doc flabby Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 (edited) As well, the RL chance of pregnancy in the first year of use is 85%, not 10%, for unprotected intercourse between two fertile individuals of the opposite sex.Ya thoughout a year I meant just one time, which is what you say at the start of this post 100% chance with one time. Having sex with an unfamlier partner (ie whislt cheating on your bf/husband) substancially increases the chance of pregnancy. Mmm? Can you clarify? Is this because of a tendency to engage in unprotected intercourse while exercising such behavior?This is all based on unprotected Basically a new partner produces more sperm, so increases the chance of impregnation:) I wish i could find the correct citations but its to do with sperm compeition. 99% of human sperm are duds. only 1% are acctually fertile. The rest are there to kill anyone elses sperm Edited November 7, 2008 by doc flabby
Samapico Posted November 7, 2008 Report Posted November 7, 2008 The rest are there to kill anyone elses spermThese things are brutal!
Recommended Posts